4 ms·

> When a bully is threatening you, the very worst thing you can do is to give in to the bully Agreed in principle, but in this case there are two bullies to wo

by kcplate 9mo ago

> When a bully is threatening you, the very worst thing you can do is to give in to the bully Agreed in principle, but in this case there are two bullies to worry about which changes that equation. You can choose to align with the bigger tougher bully who is periodically reasonable, has a lot of shared values, and generally has been historically friendly to you. They only occasionally get grumpy and have to be placated. This alignment has, can, and will protect against the other bully. Or…you can chose to not align with them because they went and got grumpy again and the consequence of that is they will just ignore you when the other bully comes calling to kick your ass. Factor in that you can’t align with the other bully at all because they have never ever been friendly or reasonable to you. They also don’t have hardly any shared values. They cant protect you from the other bigger tougher bully anyway. So its a moot point. At the end of the day you are faced with a sort of global political version of Pascal’s Wager.

JohnFen 9mo ago
> you can chose to not align with them because they went and got grumpy again But we didn't just "get grumpy again". We've been actively telling and showing our allies that we're their enemy. That they have another enemy as well is certainly a factor, but it doesn't mean that they will treat us as if we're their allies. We're in the process of burning that bridge, and they can reasonably expect that if they submit to us, they won't come out well for it. What it means is that they have to distance themselves from us as much as they can. And it shows the nations that would otherwise be friendly to us and that we aren't currently targeting that they need to do the same as well.
- kcplate 9mo ago
  > We've been actively telling and showing our allies that we're their enemy In my opinion that is an exaggeration. Trump has certainly been pressing US interests (as he sees them) and sometimes those interests may not fully align with what some of our allies want. Conversely, sometimes that happens in reverse too, yet we tend to work things out in the end. This will too. > What it means is that they have to distance themselves from us as much as they can. Another way of saying that would be “they need to stop being dependent on the US as much as they can.” I am sure any sovereign state would really want that as a goal.

by kcplate 9mo ago

JohnFen 9mo ago

> you can chose to not align with them because they went and got grumpy again But we didn't just "get grumpy again". We've been actively telling and showing our allies that we're their enemy. That they have another enemy as well is certainly a factor, but it doesn't mean that they will treat us as if we're their allies. We're in the process of burning that bridge, and they can reasonably expect that if they submit to us, they won't come out well for it. What it means is that they have to distance themselves from us as much as they can. And it shows the nations that would otherwise be friendly to us and that we aren't currently targeting that they need to do the same as well.

kcplate 9mo ago
> We've been actively telling and showing our allies that we're their enemy In my opinion that is an exaggeration. Trump has certainly been pressing US interests (as he sees them) and sometimes those interests may not fully align with what some of our allies want. Conversely, sometimes that happens in reverse too, yet we tend to work things out in the end. This will too. > What it means is that they have to distance themselves from us as much as they can. Another way of saying that would be “they need to stop being dependent on the US as much as they can.” I am sure any sovereign state would really want that as a goal.